A recently granted patent from AVIC Chengdu on a dual-engine tandem arrangement (S)VTOL aircraft (possibly fighter-based?).
View attachment 113248
View attachment 113249
One - Could the patent be related to this from several years ago?
View attachment 113250
Two - IMO, UCAVs would be more suitable for (S)VTOL application than manned fighters for China.
Three - Why now?
Four - Where is the weapons bay?
Companies and institutes patent things all the time, it doesn't mean it is under active development.
I've noticed that you are often asking a lot of questions that arise from relatively minor news or pictures. Before asking questions it's better to first consider whether a piece of news or picture is actually significant or not, because if it isn't then chances are it isn't worth answering those questions to begin with because the answers you will get will be useless anyway due to a lack of definitive information.
For example, to address your four points, based on the above circumstances:
One - who knows, it's only a patent. But as the question you asked is "could it be" -- the the answer is yes, as the likelihood of the patent being related to it is technically non-zero.
Two - why does this statement need to be made? Does the existence of this patent suggest that China is actively intending to develop or procure a STOVL combat aircraft? Even if they were hypothetically considering developing and procuring a STOVL fighter, does it mean UCAVs are not also very important to the PLA? Are any of these questions worth considering at this stage based on only a patent???
Three - who cares, it's a patent that happened to be filed recently.
Four - it's just a patent.
Sometimes it is important to not ask certain questions, because by merely asking questions based on a new piece of news or picture, it can convey to new members or people unfamiliar with the process, that the train of thought underlying the question is a reasonable one.
In reality, it is as important to signal when something is "not a big deal" or at least to recognize when something is "not necessarily significant at all". If everything minor is seen as a big deal resulting in a flurry of follow on questions, then we'd never get anything done.